WI Pioneer 0 was a Success
- Thread starter John Fredrick Parker
- Start date
It could lead to the military continuing to fund missions outside of LEO, at least for the near future. Also, it would probably get the Soviets to try to do something similar.
Politically, it would represent an obvious American victory in the space race, after the embarrassment of Sputnik 1.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Would this, I wonder, make it less likely that America throws itself at putting a man on the moon?
it had put America leader of the Space Race by launching a USAF probe around the Moon !
because Pioneer 0 was launch 37 day BEVOR soviet Luna 1A (first attempt but the rocket explode)
it would provide not only scientific data but also first picture form Moon fare side !
even a year earlier that Soviet Luna 3 mission
and with success of second Pioneer probe, the Soviet lunar program is in deep trouble
and it could be that Nikita Khrushchev goes for drastic action for propaganda stuns: Luna E
hitting the moon with a atomic bomb !
that's no joke but a serious 1950s proposal, not only in USSR, also at USA had study the idea as Project A119
because Pioneer 0 was launch 37 day BEVOR soviet Luna 1A (first attempt but the rocket explode)
it would provide not only scientific data but also first picture form Moon fare side !
even a year earlier that Soviet Luna 3 mission
and with success of second Pioneer probe, the Soviet lunar program is in deep trouble
and it could be that Nikita Khrushchev goes for drastic action for propaganda stuns: Luna E
hitting the moon with a atomic bomb !
that's no joke but a serious 1950s proposal, not only in USSR, also at USA had study the idea as Project A119
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
What are the chances the Soviets go with "moon-nuking" in the aftermath of Pioneer 0? If it doesn't happen, then how would the space race proceed?
With success of Pioneer 1 & 2 (by USAF) bring first Moon orbiter and first picture of fare side of moon, makes the soviet Lunar 1-4 program pointless for there leaders.
The USSR will try next hard and soft-landing on Moon to beat the USA in Moon race. but that will take 4 years on R&D for new probes.
but what will the US do in same time ?
next are Pioneer 3 & 4 by US Army, if stay like OTL on 3 it's Juno launch rocket explode, 4 manage as first space craft to leave Earth Moon system
and Pioneer P advance Orbiter probe two to the Moon , two to Venus
sadly the Pioneer P program had problems most with Atlas Able rocket who used the immature Atlas D (7 test flight, 4 failure, one those destroy the launch pad)
Pioneer P3 had launch problems and came damage in wrong orbit 4800 × 6400 km around Earth.
Pioneer P30 it Able stage failed and the probe fall in atlantic
Pioneer P31 it Able stage ignite on Working Atlas rocket and Explode
the four probe was launch as Pioneer 5 on Thor Able direction Venus as test
of corse the Able could work perfect once for Moon orbits...
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
I don't see why, unless Khrushchev throws a tantrum and disappears Korolev, or something like that. Even then he'd still want someone working on orbiting some Soviet cosmonauts; for all I know it might actually lead to a better orbiter (one that say allows for a safe landing with the cosmonaut still inside) sooner. And I don't think he'll blame Korolev actually, so I see little reason to doubt Gagarin orbits first still.
After all I don't see how the Pioneer success would make the US manned program accelerate either. Even if we did step up the pace with the extra confidence this early success inspires, the American program involved first suborbital then orbital launches, so if Shepard beats Gagarin but in a Mercury-Redstone, the Soviets will still have a first when Gagarin finally does fly, Vostok flights being fully orbital.
To elaborate a bit more, Eisenhower was not disinterested in space--but he had a very specific interest, and that was the Corona spy satellite program, which was top secret. I believe it was this program that experienced a string of 8 or 9 launch failures before finally getting something operational into orbit. If the US had such a spectacular and solid scientific probe achievement under our belt this early, if anything it would turn down the heat on the back-burner Man In Space project. Any increased political capital regarding the space program that came Ike's way he'd prefer to divert toward making Corona work; I suppose he might do something like transfer whoever got credit for the success of Pioneer to that program in the hope they might work some good voodoo there.
So--butterflies, strictly speaking, are butterflies, that is they are chaotic. Those kind of butterflies would do little to change the relative schedules of Mercury and Vostok.
Russians panicking because the American Pioneer did not fail and so they were scooped on being first to send something around the Moon would not strictly speaking be a "butterfly" so much as a systematic effect of the POD. I doubt they would and if they did it might not change the final outcome--some sort of Soviet manned launch to orbit and successful recovery of the cosmonaut by 1961, and ahead of Mercury-Atlas being ready to send an American into orbit. Conceivably an American might go suborbital first, but I also doubt that--a more likely systematic effect would be a further delay of Mercury, IMHO. The more laurels American space ventures had, the more Ike would tend to rest on them, is my judgement.
The Kennedy-Nixon race was so very close, that mere butterflies alone might flip it, despite Daly in Chicago; perhaps if the American voters were a bit more complacent about American space progress that would do the job systematically. I don't really know if Nixon would have been more energetic about Man In Space than Eisenhower was, I would guess somewhat anyway, and I don't know how he'd compare to Kennedy--I'd guess pretty close, considering the contractor pork involved in the space biz, but he probably wouldn't do something as quixotic as give the country a deadline to get a man on the Moon before the decade is out.
My personal feeling is, it would take something major to prevent a Kennedy administration, close election figures to the contrary; there is a certain de facto culture of "taking turns" between the major parties that is in play and I suspect that in 1960 the fix was in, one way or another, for a Democrat to be in office for a while. Pioneer or not, JFK would still run on "getting this country moving again" and the recession that hits every decade like clockwork gave his slogans some point. He'd still run on the bomber gap and missile gap despite having to admit later these perceptions were mistaken--the "gaps" being in our favor, not Russia's. I don't really think Pioneer's success would flip many voters, and others would flip the other way if Mercury were going even slower than OTL.
A man in orbit beats a hundred successful unmanned probes for PR; the Space Race would be pretty much back on OTL track once Vostok 1 or possible alternate returns the first cosmonaut to Earth.
----
One thing to ask is, why does the Pioneer launch work without a hitch ITTL? I'm assuming it's just plain alternate luck; it failed OTL for some silly overlooked reason that might just as well not have failed. If this is so, then presumably the rest of the programs go on pretty much the same or if anything with worse luck--doubtless some improvements in design and procedure were made in the post-mortem of Pioneer OTL that wouldn't be made here, leading to a few more future launch failures versus OTL.
If on the other hand it worked because there was a wizard or three on the launch team who happened to yawn OTL at just the wrong time, but here have saved their careers, then their golden touch presumably improves matters in whichever programs they get shunted to.
So it matters whether Pioneer was just something that could easily have gone wrong but happened not to by good fortune, or the OTL failure was wicked bad luck that shouldn't have happened. I'd bet the former, and again things will go much as OTL for good and for bad.
So--butterflies, strictly speaking, are butterflies, that is they are chaotic. Those kind of butterflies would do little to change the relative schedules of Mercury and Vostok.
Russians panicking because the American Pioneer did not fail and so they were scooped on being first to send something around the Moon would not strictly speaking be a "butterfly" so much as a systematic effect of the POD. I doubt they would and if they did it might not change the final outcome--some sort of Soviet manned launch to orbit and successful recovery of the cosmonaut by 1961, and ahead of Mercury-Atlas being ready to send an American into orbit. Conceivably an American might go suborbital first, but I also doubt that--a more likely systematic effect would be a further delay of Mercury, IMHO. The more laurels American space ventures had, the more Ike would tend to rest on them, is my judgement.
The Kennedy-Nixon race was so very close, that mere butterflies alone might flip it, despite Daly in Chicago; perhaps if the American voters were a bit more complacent about American space progress that would do the job systematically. I don't really know if Nixon would have been more energetic about Man In Space than Eisenhower was, I would guess somewhat anyway, and I don't know how he'd compare to Kennedy--I'd guess pretty close, considering the contractor pork involved in the space biz, but he probably wouldn't do something as quixotic as give the country a deadline to get a man on the Moon before the decade is out.
My personal feeling is, it would take something major to prevent a Kennedy administration, close election figures to the contrary; there is a certain de facto culture of "taking turns" between the major parties that is in play and I suspect that in 1960 the fix was in, one way or another, for a Democrat to be in office for a while. Pioneer or not, JFK would still run on "getting this country moving again" and the recession that hits every decade like clockwork gave his slogans some point. He'd still run on the bomber gap and missile gap despite having to admit later these perceptions were mistaken--the "gaps" being in our favor, not Russia's. I don't really think Pioneer's success would flip many voters, and others would flip the other way if Mercury were going even slower than OTL.
A man in orbit beats a hundred successful unmanned probes for PR; the Space Race would be pretty much back on OTL track once Vostok 1 or possible alternate returns the first cosmonaut to Earth.
----
One thing to ask is, why does the Pioneer launch work without a hitch ITTL? I'm assuming it's just plain alternate luck; it failed OTL for some silly overlooked reason that might just as well not have failed. If this is so, then presumably the rest of the programs go on pretty much the same or if anything with worse luck--doubtless some improvements in design and procedure were made in the post-mortem of Pioneer OTL that wouldn't be made here, leading to a few more future launch failures versus OTL.
If on the other hand it worked because there was a wizard or three on the launch team who happened to yawn OTL at just the wrong time, but here have saved their careers, then their golden touch presumably improves matters in whichever programs they get shunted to.
So it matters whether Pioneer was just something that could easily have gone wrong but happened not to by good fortune, or the OTL failure was wicked bad luck that shouldn't have happened. I'd bet the former, and again things will go much as OTL for good and for bad.
for man in orbit, it would not change much...
Mercury and Wostock need allot R&D and take time until begin 1961 for first launch attempt
the soviet could try to launch early because Pioneer 0, but it could end deathly for poor bastard they put into capsule.
this failure would not be reported so in west no one would know what happen until collapse of soviet union in 1990s.
however there little twist in Mercury program
the Suborbital flights were delay by Werner Von Braun, he wanted go save with another Redstone rocket test launch.
had He be overruled, Alan Shepard would have launch 16 day BEFOR Yurin Gagarin in Wostock 1
that had put the soviet serious behind in space race again..
On US space probe with success of Pioneer 0, it could also alter Who building the Probe launch and operate them: the USAF and not NASA
Mercury and Wostock need allot R&D and take time until begin 1961 for first launch attempt
the soviet could try to launch early because Pioneer 0, but it could end deathly for poor bastard they put into capsule.
this failure would not be reported so in west no one would know what happen until collapse of soviet union in 1990s.
however there little twist in Mercury program
the Suborbital flights were delay by Werner Von Braun, he wanted go save with another Redstone rocket test launch.
had He be overruled, Alan Shepard would have launch 16 day BEFOR Yurin Gagarin in Wostock 1
that had put the soviet serious behind in space race again..
On US space probe with success of Pioneer 0, it could also alter Who building the Probe launch and operate them: the USAF and not NASA
that is not the point here,
the point is the nationality of First Human in Space in this Race...
John Fredrick Parker,
I look in some POD and alternative that Pioneer 0 and P mission could fly with other more confident launch rocket
That's is the USAF Titan 1 the backup system to Atlas ICBM
ABMA's Proposed National Integrated Missile and Space Development Program, from March 1958
proposed the use of Titan 1 as probe and Satellite launcher, with payload 450-1400 kg
or Titan I with Polaris SSLB as stage 3 and 4. with Payload 1400-2300 kg
it would have launch Pioneer 0 and P Mission with more success.
why they was Titan 1 not used ?
it was consider as Backup system if Atlas fails totally and so was treated by SAC and USAF
and as came Titan II and Minutemen ICBM operational, so Titan 1 was scrubbed
yes, it could launch advance Pioneer P missions to Moon and Venus
it would work better as Atlas-Able fiasco...
But it's not the same, because Yuri Gagarin will still be the first human in orbit, which is a distinction unto itself, whereas Sputnik 1 will merely be the second probe in space, and one that won't do as much as the American one.
Actually the bit about Von Braun dragging out Mercury with the Redstones underscores my point--the American leadership in the space program was in no hurry, from the President on down. They preferred to do it methodically and "right" and had confidence the American technology was ahead of Soviet. The panic always came from public perceptions of Western backwardness which were shamelessly manipulated for political purposes--including to be sure infighting among various factions who knew better.
Such as, say, the Air Force. The "bomber gap" and "Missile gap" panics were each cases of the Air Force, for reasons of its institutional prestige and funding, skewing the intelligence assessment task shamelessly. This is why the CIA was invented in the first place, to give dispassionate information to the President so his decisions would not be based on manipulated data.
So again, OTL it was Eisenhower who called for the formation of NASA and assigning it the mission of space science and Man In Space, and he did this for policy reasons having nothing to do with which team of rocket developers was the most competent. So the greater success of the Air Force ITTL (which again, apparently is a matter of them having plausible better luck in that particular launch, not of them being better than OTL) would not change anything. Army, Navy, and Air Force all had their rival ambitions; Ike wanted to short-circuit the whole question of which military outfit should "win" and assign whoever was good enough to civilian NASA to do the job of advancing American know-how (and prestige) in deep space. Unless the various services came up with strictly military reasons for putting soldiers or sailors in space, as they did come up with solid military reasons for launching unmanned spacecraft that were approved OTL; but he didn't want it perceived that the USA was trying to "conquer space" in the sense of "seizing the high ground" to threaten targets on Earth from or some such.
Again that's my point; to technological insiders, the abilities the Soviets demonstrated with Sputnik were not news and in terms of developed and deployed capabilities the USA was still ahead, but in terms of general public perceptions it very pointedly demonstrated that the Russians were a people to be reckoned with. They in fact used essentially the same rocket to orbit Gagarin as they used to launch all the Sputniks. (And I believe that their OTL success in seeing the far side of the Moon first, which Michel has pointed out was by no means their first try, was also on an R-7 rocket, though I could be mistaken about that). Actually translunar orbits were already within the capabilities of the earliest rockets used by both sides; someone quite accidently, due to a launch failure late in the process, wound up sending one probe on the wrong trajectory--right out of the Earth-Moon system into an independent orbit around the Sun! By accident and as a mission failure.
The first US satellite, Explorer 1, was by all accounts superior to Sputnik 1. What mattered to the public was, it was second. Insiders knew full well it was second and not first because of policy reasons, not because it couldn't have been launched earlier for technical ones.
And those policy reasons had again to do with Corona, which was secret--Eisenhower wanted the first satellite, which he thought would be Vanguard, to be clearly civilian and scientific, because he feared the Soviets would try to make a fuss over a spy satellite orbiting over Russia--he felt a foot in the door in the form of a harmless satellite might help with a precedent. Then Khrushchev did him the favor of undercutting future Soviet objects much more surely than anything the US could do, by orbiting their satellite first with no by-your-leaves from any other nation.
After that the gloves were off and it was OK if the first satellite had obvious capabilities and was launched by an Army team involving a bunch of former Nazis. If Corona had been ready, and not bogged down in its long string of launch failures, one of them might have been the first US satellite--and not counted for a long time of course because it was secret.So the point is, the POD makes little difference, except that the major Lunar far side features presumably don't get so many Russian names. The policy decisions about which agency gets what missions and at what pace each program should be pursued remain the same, on both sides of the Iron Curtain.
I could be wrong about what happens in Russia (which I guessed was, nothing much). But I'm pretty confident it would make little difference in the USA and if anything would tend rather to slow things down instead of speed them up.
Again it would be different if the reason Pioneer does not fail on launch is that the design and launch team was objectively better than OTL--but why and how would they be? The many failures of the early years were not because the teams were incompetent, it was because they were pioneering an unknown field and inevitable mistakes were how they learned their art, by expensive trial and error. Better luck on this one launch implies nothing about future launches, if anything tends to mask as yet undiscovered flaws and delay their rectification with a false glow of success.
That's why I think the Soviet leadership would have been tolerant of a few more slip-ups relative to OTL, particularly ones that involved the USA having a bit more luck. If they panicked at every disappointment and set-back they'd have abandoned space and rocketry decades ago; there had to be some tolerance in the Kremlin for the Soviet efforts to have been sustained at all.